The complicating matter is the fact that the Constitution permits the Federal government to engage in treaties with foreign governments. As much as I despise the U.N., the United States government did not violate the Constitution by signing the treaty. Treaties place the Federal government under certain obligations, which hold the same place in Federal law as the Constitution itself. Were our military involvement in Macedonia a requirement of our U.N. membership, the President and the Secretary of Defense would be obliged to command the U.S. military to do so. Thus, New's order would have been lawful and he would have been obliged to obey it.
Neither the Defense Department nor Michael New appear to have clearly proven their case. It is my hope that this case would be heard by the Supreme Court.
This is indeed the question.
His oath did not require him to obey the orders issued by foreign commanders (in this instance, a Turk)
It's not important- but it was a Finn. A Finnish General was in charge of UNPROFOR FYROM- not a Turk. I was there a short time before New was slated to go- there were no Turks whatsoever in theatre.
It is my hope that this case would be heard by the Supreme Court.
Yes, I would have liked to see the Supreme Court take it on as well. New was also reacting to hyperbole, although he may have had a good point. But the bottom line is- you cannot have the rank and file claiming Constitutional Violations every time they are given an order. Imagine a B52 Pilot refusing to drop his payload because he feared that it might be against the Constitution.
I went to Macedonia before New was ordered to go. I was in the same brigade (same town in Germany) as he. My platoon was in a special situation (we were the commanding General's personal protection force)- but the other soldiers in Operation Able Sentry never received an order from a foreign officer.
The thing that disturbs me about this discussion on FR is the distortion of the facts. I was there- in Macedonia and in Schweinfurt, Germany. Some parts to his argument had merit. But other portions (nowadays they have become gross distortions) of the argument have none. Just like in this article-
President Clinton´s order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional.
It may have been extremely controversial in the USA but I can assure you in Schweinfurt, Germany- where New was stationed- it was not. It was treated as any other deployment. I recall the UN/Constitutional issue being brought up by fellow soldiers exactly "Zero Times". Bottom line- He was given a lawful order and refused to obey.
Had I been his commanding officer, I would have simply ordered him to be physically placed upon the airplane and that would have been the end of it. If he had wanted to take the political dissent route afterwards- so be it. The military is no place for politics- period. When the military gets involved in politics- woe to us all.
So nice to see that some folk Get It !! !!
Bravo !!